Hey, JerryVonFtKCrossdresser, you never answered my Original Question about choice of distributions.

Gaussian, Poisson or Bernoulli and why. Should be simple. I could answer it in a sentence - without math!

I know you hate math.

Also, have you figured out that Queue Emm is only a framework like the word "color" and to say that Auntie Emm did something is like saying color did something?

Perhaps we need a poll, a general consensus to determine if you, JimmyBobbyFtKay-ee, are stupider than the most stupid tard to ever grace this forum, you buddy Gary's alter-ego, Joe "ice is not water" G.

Seriously, you may be the dumbest fuck to ever represent dumb fuckery and that's saying something.

Not remotely as stupid as Joe. But it's possible to travel a long, long way from "as stupid as Joe" and still not have left Stupidland.

I see the current Jerry/Gary droolings as a step towards the long-anticipated Grand Unification of Tard, as the Two Stooges attempt to merge ID and quantum quackery. Once they've succesfully combined creationism and Choprawoo, I'm sure they'll be working with Joe on incoporating climate-change denialism, pyramidiocy and associated tinfoilhattery. Then they'll finally have achieved the Tard Theory of Everything.

Let me guess...the MORE debates you guys so obviously lose to people, so OBVIOUSLY so, even to the less informed readers, the STUPIDER your opponents get, right?? :D :O :D

Yeah, you're down now to where ONLY about 10% of the students who study this Darwinism crap accept it from a naturalistic perspective.

It won't be long until you're left holding your pollywogs in one hand, your worthless PhDs in nothing in the other, wondering why 100% of the world suddenly got stupid.

Hey, they musta all went nuts and you guys are the only sane people left!

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Hey, JerryVonFtKCrossdresser, you never answered my Original Question about choice of distributions.

Gaussian, Poisson or Bernoulli and why. Should be simple. I could answer it in a sentence - without math!

I know you hate math.

Also, have you figured out that Queue Emm is only a framework like the word "color" and to say that Auntie Emm did something is like saying color did something?

Perhaps we need a poll, a general consensus to determine if you, JimmyBobbyFtKay-ee, are stupider than the most stupid tard to ever grace this forum, you buddy Gary's alter-ego, Joe "ice is not water" G.

Seriously, you may be the dumbest fuck to ever represent dumb fuckery and that's saying something.

Not remotely as stupid as Joe. But it's possible to travel a long, long way from "as stupid as Joe" and still not have left Stupidland.

I see the current Jerry/Gary droolings as a step towards the long-anticipated Grand Unification of Tard, as the Two Stooges attempt to merge ID and quantum quackery. Once they've succesfully combined creationism and Choprawoo, I'm sure they'll be working with Joe on incoporating climate-change denialism, pyramidiocy and associated tinfoilhattery. Then they'll finally have achieved the Tard Theory of Everything.

Let me guess...the MORE debates you guys so obviously lose to people, so OBVIOUSLY so, even to the less informed readers, the STUPIDER your opponents get, right?? :D :O :D

Yeah, you're down now to where ONLY about 10% of the students who study this Darwinism crap accept it from a naturalistic perspective.

It won't be long until you're left holding your pollywogs in one hand, your worthless PhDs in nothing in the other, wondering why 100% of the world suddenly got stupid.

Hey, they musta all went nuts and you guys are the only sane people left!

Jim Bob,

Just a little bit up the thread you tacitly admitted that you have no idea what you're talking about, and at the same time suggested that whatever a inbred slorm is, it sure ain't gonna nullify your position. That a person who seems to be of reasonable intelligence can lack self-awareness to the extent that you do amazes me. It shouldn't after all this time, but it does.

Now what about that color continuum, Leroy?

--------------Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

I think we should award these boobs Chopras for every time they misuse the words quantum, quanta or Quantas. The units of the Chopra being negative woos.

One has to earn one's spurs to use the Q-word. I earned mine by getting a 4 on a QM3 mid-term exam, earning me a B for the semester. Yes, that's a 4 out of 100. The high score was 10 and we called that cat Son of Bohr. So, you can appreciate why I'm a little tender when bohunks start throwing around quantum-this and quantum-that and none of the fuckers paid their dues. No, they dint!

How it's going that less than successful efforts (I know from helping her own efforts in KCFS to be sure) than were to be had to get, much to the National Academies chagrin, sentences structured to not conform to the biased scientists so called definitions of what it means to be a sentence in a non-fucked up so to speak way.

Actually, rereading, that's still too coherent. I think I would have to study to learn how Gary makes such a hash of it. He makes it look so easy.

Hey, JerryVonFtKCrossdresser, you never answered my Original Question about choice of distributions.

Gaussian, Poisson or Bernoulli and why. Should be simple. I could answer it in a sentence - without math!

I know you hate math.

Also, have you figured out that Queue Emm is only a framework like the word "color" and to say that Auntie Emm did something is like saying color did something?

Perhaps we need a poll, a general consensus to determine if you, JimmyBobbyFtKay-ee, are stupider than the most stupid tard to ever grace this forum, you buddy Gary's alter-ego, Joe "ice is not water" G.

Seriously, you may be the dumbest fuck to ever represent dumb fuckery and that's saying something.

Not remotely as stupid as Joe. But it's possible to travel a long, long way from "as stupid as Joe" and still not have left Stupidland.

I see the current Jerry/Gary droolings as a step towards the long-anticipated Grand Unification of Tard, as the Two Stooges attempt to merge ID and quantum quackery. Once they've succesfully combined creationism and Choprawoo, I'm sure they'll be working with Joe on incoporating climate-change denialism, pyramidiocy and associated tinfoilhattery. Then they'll finally have achieved the Tard Theory of Everything.

Let me guess...the MORE debates you guys so obviously lose to people, so OBVIOUSLY so, even to the less informed readers, the STUPIDER your opponents get, right?? :D :O :D

Yeah, you're down now to where ONLY about 10% of the students who study this Darwinism crap accept it from a naturalistic perspective.

It won't be long until you're left holding your pollywogs in one hand, your worthless PhDs in nothing in the other, wondering why 100% of the world suddenly got stupid.

Hey, they musta all went nuts and you guys are the only sane people left!

So, Jer, old fruit, how about those distribution models?

You're going to duck this question, aren't you. Very naughty to try to hide from the Achilles' Heel of your entire Queue Emmness.

Have you ever considered that another problem you face in your (echo chamber) Queue Emm Theory of Everything (end echo chamber) is that framastatic condensation is going to cause your timescale to slip as entropy increases (by the obvious generation of multicellular, complex organisms and ecology) but framastatic expansion will cause your timescale to compress by the same algorithm such that the net energy of the process will be zero. Granted, energy must be inserted into the equation at the beginning but it is extracted at the end yielding a differential of zero, although the measure of work in the entire system will be positive. I just thought that was an interesting consequence.

How it's going that less than successful efforts (I know from helping her own efforts in KCFS to be sure) than were to be had to get, much to the National Academies chagrin, sentences structured to not conform to the biased scientists so called definitions of what it means to be a sentence in a non-fucked up so to speak way.

Actually, rereading, that's still too coherent. I think I would have to study to learn how Gary makes such a hash of it. He makes it look so easy.

There is it also hospitals here? It not fail them.What are then the edifices the worthiest to have seen?It is the arsnehal, the spectacle's hall, the Cusiomhouse, and the Purse.We are going too see the others monuments such that the public pawnbroker's office, the plants garden's, the money office's, the library.That it shall be for another day; we are tired.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

i guess all those fishery managers who enforce catch limits on walleyes and saugers are just being assholes. since they can interbreed, according to Jimmy Ray Humpsniff, they aren't different species after all. and he has obviously never met a fucking botanist

Tell me Cletus why haven't you straightened all these poor deluded people out, since you obviously know more about speciation than the people who wrote the damned book?

Somebody called for a botanist?

Jerry, ever heard of hybrid swarms? What about heterostyly* (e.g. dimorphic pin and thrum flowers) in vascular plants that leads to breeding incompatibility between morphs in the same species. Can you explain how these observations fit into your definition of a species and speciation?

* When reminding myself of the proper term via a bit of googling, I came across the following reference:

Darwin, Charles 1862. On the two forms, or dimorphic condition, in the species of Primula, and on their remarkable sexual relations. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society (Botany) 6, 77–96.

Is there anything that guy didn't know at least something about?

No, sorry...I'm not familiar with those concepts.

Perhaps you could explain them and elucidate how you feel they might negatively affect my musings thus far.

IOW, what have I said that those concepts show to be wrong? I've got an open mind.......

Yes. You said:

Quote

It arises when the definition of Earnt Mayr's (did I spell it right this time?) definition FOR a given sexual species is met:

organisms which can interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring.

"Scientists have a pretty good handle on what constitutes a species for sexually reproducing animals: the biological-species concept. According to this concept, a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce viable and fertile offspring."

Plants that exhibit heterostyly have different flower morphs. For example, in Primula some individuals have flowers that have stamens and style arranged in one manner (pin). Other individuals have flowers with reproductive parts arranged in another fashion (thrum). Pin to pin fertilisation is ineffective, as is thrum to thrum. So in Primula and other plants that exhibit heterostyly, would pin and thrum morphs be the same species under your definition? Given that under your definition, members of the same species must be able to freely interbreed?

How it's going that less than successful efforts (I know from helping her own efforts in KCFS to be sure) than were to be had to get, much to the National Academies chagrin, sentences structured to not conform to the biased scientists so called definitions of what it means to be a sentence in a non-fucked up so to speak way.

Actually, rereading, that's still too coherent. I think I would have to study to learn how Gary makes such a hash of it. He makes it look so easy.

here's what you do.

hit yourself right in the temple with the small end of a ballpeen hammer

then drink a liter of vodka

smoke salvia

tape your thumb and middle finger together

you are now ready to type something like Giggles

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Jerry, ever heard of hybrid swarms? What about heterostyly* (e.g. dimorphic pin and thrum flowers) in vascular plants that leads to breeding incompatibility between morphs in the same species. Can you explain how these observations fit into your definition of a species and speciation?

* When reminding myself of the proper term via a bit of googling, I came across the following reference:

Darwin, Charles 1862. On the two forms, or dimorphic condition, in the species of Primula, and on their remarkable sexual relations. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society (Botany) 6, 77–96.

Is there anything that guy didn't know at least something about?

No, sorry...I'm not familiar with those concepts.

Perhaps you could explain them and elucidate how you feel they might negatively affect my musings thus far.

IOW, what have I said that those concepts show to be wrong? I've got an open mind.......

Part two. You said:

Quote

Experimentation shows that when a hybred IS produced that might meet the criteria, the offspring is ALWAY non-viable (it doesn't live) or it is infertile like mules and ligars.

Dude. Really. Look up hybrid swarms, as JohnW and others have told you to. These are clear contradictions of your "species" (or kinds?) concepts.

I've just opened up Stace's New Flora of the British Isles to the genus Salix. Willows, that is. Let me quote:"Identification is often made difficult by the extensive degree of hybridisation (68 combinations at present known in BI [British Isles], of which 20 are hybrids between 3 spp.)."

How it's going that less than successful efforts (I know from helping her own efforts in KCFS to be sure) than were to be had to get, much to the National Academies chagrin, sentences structured to not conform to the biased scientists so called definitions of what it means to be a sentence in a non-fucked up so to speak way.

Actually, rereading, that's still too coherent. I think I would have to study to learn how Gary makes such a hash of it. He makes it look so easy.

here's what you do.

hit yourself right in the temple with the small end of a ballpeen hammer

then drink a liter of vodka

smoke salvia

tape your thumb and middle finger together

you are now ready to type something like Giggles

Salvia? Would that be Salvia x sylvestris or hybrid clary, which Stace reports as "partially fertile" contrary to Jerry's dogma?

Oh, didn't think so.

Lucky I got the first part of your advice right. Allowing for substitution of two parts wine (in honour of today's €1 tax on a buideal of vino in Noonan's budget) that is.

really, though, don't do that shit. unless you want to see the strings that hold the universe together. while you are seeing them, however, you will only be able to communicate using something very close to gary's vernacular syntax

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

There is it also hospitals here? It not fail them.What are then the edifices the worthiest to have seen?It is the arsnehal, the spectacle's hall, the Cusiomhouse, and the Purse.We are going too see the others monuments such that the public pawnbroker's office, the plants garden's, the money office's, the library.That it shall be for another day; we are tired.

The problem is that it is so difficult to distinguish that from this:

Quote

Then as she is on her behaviourite job of quainance bandy, fruting for firstlings and taking her tithe, we may take our review of the two mounds to see nothing of the himples here as at else-where, by sixes and sevens, like so many heegills and collines, sitton aroont, scentbreeched and somepotreek, in their swisha-wish satins and their taffetaffe tights, playing Wharton's Folly, at a treepurty on the planko in the purk. Stand up, mickos!

Perhaps we are shepherds trembling beyond the manger at the birth of a new phase of western cultural development.

There is it also hospitals here? It not fail them.What are then the edifices the worthiest to have seen?It is the arsnehal, the spectacle's hall, the Cusiomhouse, and the Purse.We are going too see the others monuments such that the public pawnbroker's office, the plants garden's, the money office's, the library.That it shall be for another day; we are tired.

The problem is that it is so difficult to distinguish that from this:

Quote

Then as she is on her behaviourite job of quainance bandy, fruting for firstlings and taking her tithe, we may take our review of the two mounds to see nothing of the himples here as at else-where, by sixes and sevens, like so many heegills and collines, sitton aroont, scentbreeched and somepotreek, in their swisha-wish satins and their taffetaffe tights, playing Wharton's Folly, at a treepurty on the planko in the purk. Stand up, mickos!

Perhaps we are shepherds trembling beyond the manger at the birth of a new phase of western cultural development.

You might call it Post-Thinkism.

I call it Post-Drinkism.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Oh...but you DO have the math to support abiogenesis, speciation of Archaeopteryx and people magically morphing out of monkeys? Let's see it...When we see your walk match your talk mathematically, then I'll try to come up to speed... ;)

Ehm now now don't turn the table, evolution does not cite quantum entanglement as having anything at all to do with speciation. YOU are the one who said that QM and quantum entanglement has something to do with it. Sooo YOU are the one that needs to supply the evidence and since quantum states are described in equations YOU have to supply the equations that show what you haven't yet described in words but that in some way lead to speciation.

For you relief and piece of mind I will kindly supply you the starting equations that describe quantum entanglement:

Right now show us your stuff... and win a ticket to Sweden!

Alternately you could again state that you are clueless as to the maths behind quantum mechanics in which case you admit that you have no idea as to the role of QM.

You know, it would really be helpful if you could just explain in words how you think quantum entanglement can create a species. What are the processes involved? what are the steps that you have identified? Where have you see this taking place? what is the order in which the events you will describe take place? What is your evidence for all of the above...you know that kind of stuff. (Please note saying that we are made out of atoms does not describe a process)

Quote

Who says that intelligence is only pondered guesses and conscious thought? We need to get past the thinking that all intelligence hinges on an IQ test. That limits it only to humans (pretty much, anyhow)

Ah so you admit that you have to redefine the meaning of intelligence. Instead of redefining an existing term (which could really create a lot of misconceptions) why not invent a new term that fits your theory.

Since I suspect that this is not the only term you have arbitrarily redefined why don't you let us know what other terms you have created/redefined just so we can be clear that when you say something it means something totally different to what is commonly associated with that word and that in your world, that specific word has a different meaning that only you know.

Lastly I was wondering if you could tell us if non coding DNA is, according to your view, designed or not.

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Hey jerry, besides all the other questions you've been asked, I have another one for you:

Will you make up your mind about what you're arguing for, and arguing against? You jump around like a frog on a hotplate, just like all the other IDiots do when their vague, bald assertions are questioned or challenged. None of you ever give a straight, honest, and coherent answer to the questions asked of you, and yet, like other IDiots, you think that you're 'winning' arguments and will soon rid the world of the ToE (what you call "Darwinism") simply because you say so. You're deluded.

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

The model no longer needs each particle to be individually intelligent, still work 100% like before without Guess in the circuit and computer RAM space for each. Only need one RAM memory addressed by number of electrons, neutrons, protons, possible energy states.

Gary, this is completely incoherent. Until you learn how to write sentences you should not be attempting to write paragraphs.

That one does expand out, to at least a good paragraph.

A String Theory based model would have a RAM memory with data for producing the behavior of strings. A Quantum Mechanics Theory based model would have a RAM memory with data for producing the behavior of quanta (electrons, neutrons, protons) that form particles called atoms, which Schrodinger’s Equation attempts to explain using a mathematical model. Each particle in its universe is a certain type of atom, with unique behavior depending on number of electrons, neutrons, protons.

The RAM array has more than one behavior in it. To address the proper data action one element of the memory can be given a number from 1 to total types/isotopes, along with environmental conditions around it (the particle must respond to). That data changes its current motor/velocity and direction, which in turn changes its position at each time step.

Hopefully that makes more sense now.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gary, just so you know, the Schroedinger equation is used in non-relativistic quantum mechanics. If you are interested in describing the formation of an atom from protons, neutrons, and electrons, non-relativistic quantum mechanics is not the right tool. You need quantum chromodynamics to get from protons and neutrons to a nucleus.

I am sure you can imagine implementing all that (QCD, Schroedinger equation, whatever...). :)

Gary: a non-heat for the burning of passing hands vessel that can when obstinate Darwinists look to find, liquid occasions the storage of best designed energy giving molecules--contained in aforesaid.

Blipey: wtf?

Gary: only your worse thinking kind fabricated on notebooks kept secretly blank not thinking through many implications of design by which the mug formal is a member of that page being most blank. That should answer your question.

Gary, just so you know, the Schroedinger equation is used in non-relativistic quantum mechanics. If you are interested in describing the formation of an atom from protons, neutrons, and electrons, non-relativistic quantum mechanics is not the right tool. You need quantum chromodynamics to get from protons and neutrons to a nucleus.

Thanks for the quantum chromodynamic detail. That's good to know.

I found out the hard way (by having programmed Schrodinger's Equation to draw orbitals) that there is no way to draw atoms from that, even where the nucleus is not separately modeled. It's the same idea (though math model not cognitive algorithm) where number of protons/neutrons is a variable that changes orbital shape and size (behavior) for an electron.

In an IA model (for electrons around given nuclei) the same variables are simply used to address a unique memory address in a RAM array. That skips the giant number crunching Schrodinger's and and other math equation. Right away gives the data needed to change the speed and direction of the orbiting electron particle bot. A math model can be used to train the particle bots, but after that it already knows how to behave that way. Just have to somehow sum up conditions around it to a unique address number that defines data response to be taken.

Quote (olegt @ Dec. 06 2012,08:28)

I am sure you can imagine implementing all that (QCD, Schroedinger equation, whatever...). :)

The IA model is for eliminating the need for implementing Schroedinger's and all the rest. I can imagine not needing all the math, and whatever...

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

A String Theory based model would have a RAM memory with data for producing the behavior of strings.

"RAM memory" is a pleonasm. :angry:

Ah yes, very redundant word.

A String Theory based model would have a RAM with data for producing the behavior of strings.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.